edubase_delete_exam

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds the archive fallback and the user-confirmation requirement, which are not present in the annotations (which only state destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint). This is meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't detail reversibility or related-data effects, but annotations already cover the destructive/idempotent profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the conditional behavior is stated in one clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the action, the fallback, and the confirmation requirement. The absence of an output schema and lack of detail on archive vs. delete response are minor gaps for this simple operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter ('exam identification string'). The description does not add format or source details for the exam identifier, but with full schema coverage the baseline applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an exam'), and goes further by specifying the conditional fallback ('archive it when the user is not allowed to delete it'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete tools that target exam subresources (e.g., edubase_delete_exam_autologin, edubase_delete_exam_certificates).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Delete an exam') and a conditional alternative ('archive it when the user is not allowed to delete it'), plus a required precondition ('Confirm with the user first'). It does not name sibling alternatives, but no other sibling deletes the exam itself, so the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.